Laserfiche WebLink
<br />{oe . <br />\. <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />De~mber 10, 2006 - Page 3 <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />Easement- Subdivision opponentdahnsac~ easement created improperly <br />Argues plat drawings of easement are. vague <br />Citation: Barry Simon Development Inc. v. Hale, Court of Appeals of Missouri, <br />Eastern Dist., Div. 4, No. ED87452f2006) <br />MISSOURI (10/24/06) - Eagle Crest Subdivlsion was a single-family residen- <br />tial subdivision located in the city of Chesterfield. <br />Barry Simon Development Inc. owned pr~perty to the south of Eagle Crest. <br />Simon planned to develop a new s~bdivisid>n on the property. The primary <br />means of ingress-egress for the subd.ivision'would be a 50-foot wide access <br />easement over Eagle Crest common gr;ound.1bis access easement was part of <br />the original site plan of Eagle Crest, although ~thad remained undeveloped land. <br />Hale, and other Eagle Crest residents, qpposed the access easement. By <br />doing so, their actions held up SimQfi's project. <br />Simon sued, and the court ruled in its favor. Hale appealed, arguing <br />that the access easement was invalid because. all of Eagle Crest plat <br />drawings of it were vague. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The access easement was valid. <br />Easements were often created by plat, and state law did,not require certain <br />words to establish an easement. Importantly, courts were not restricted by the <br />words and markings on a plat and could give effect to the meaning and intent <br />exhibited by the outlines of the plats. <br />Here, the Eagle Crest site development plan, as a plat, showed intent to create <br />the access easement. It unambiguously designated the strip of lau,d at issue as <br />a "50' Wide Access Easement" and showed it serving the property to the south. <br />Further, any ambiguity was rem~:"Ted bylthesitedevelopment plan's incor- <br />poration of the city ordinance enacted in ailticipation of the development of <br />Eagle Crest. The ordinance referenced the access easement and stated that <br />approval of the Eagle Crest plan was' subje~t to having access to the property <br />to the south. <br />Taken together, there was no ambiguity in,thecreation of the access easement <br />see also: Borron v. Farrenkopf, 5 S. W3d 618 (1999). <br /> <br />Comprehensive Plan -llibe wants to put Umdin government-immune trust <br />Memorandum agreement between-tribe and county will then be only law <br />governing land's use <br />Citation: Alexanderson v. Board of Clark CoUnty Commissioners, Court of <br />Appeals of Washington, Div. 2, No. 33750-9-II (2006) <br /> <br />WASHINGTON (10/17/06) - In 2Q02, the rowlitzIndian Tribe applied to have <br />more than 100 acres put in trust status for thetribe.lJ1timately, the tribe wanted <br /> <br />:-: .,.._ _. J.. :_'_>' <br />@ 2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinl~n1'Misa Thof'$on Westbrand:Any reproduction is prohibited. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />143 <br />